Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council <br />Tuesday, January 18, 2022 <br />Page 11 <br />Ms. Calta stated, if I may add something. I did not attend the meeting. But a couple of things to <br />point out, I think that the Board looked at applying the practical difficulty standard. On the <br />precedent, that's a very common question that I have had. Variances, because they are not to be <br />based upon unique circumstances do not set a precedent from a legal perspective. Just keep that <br />in mind. Every variance might be different based upon facts and circumstances and should not be <br />looked at as a precedent for any other variance. <br />Mrs. Jurcisek stated, so you are saying a case by case basis then in other words? <br />Ms. Calta replied, that's correct. <br />Mrs. Jurcisek stated, okay. I agree with what Councilman Murphy had said earlier that the <br />ordinance dated back to 1994. There's a sense of vagueness to it that maybe we would need to <br />look at for the future. It can be interpreted numerous ways. <br />Mr. Williams stated, this would have been turned down by the Board based on the specifications. <br />If they would have requested it before putting it up, it would have been turned down. <br />Council President Schutt stated, they still could have applied for a variance on that. It would <br />exceed the 192 square feet, but they could have. <br />Mr. Williams stated, it would have been denied <br />Council President Schutt stated, right, and then they could still then ask for a variance. <br />Mrs. Jurcisek stated, I think it should also be noted that when reading the Minutes, it looks like <br />two individuals from the Committee were also not present during that whole thing as well. <br />Mr. Murphy stated, and it was a split decision. <br />Council President Schutt stated, correct. And then I also agree on not setting a precedent on the <br />fact that any variances would have to come back for our approval. <br />Mr. Murphy asked, so before we vote, Ms. Calta, can you go over again what a yes versus no <br />response is in regards to this? <br />Ms. Calta replied, the motion that you have pending before you is to affirm their appeal. You <br />would be reversing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals <br />denied the variance, which means you would be granting the variance. It won't go back to BZA. <br />It won't go any further, except for them submitting to the Building Department for a permit. <br />Mr. Murphy asked, that's a vote of yes? <br />